Ivan Zhakov <i...@visualsvn.com> writes: > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jcor...@gmail.com> wrote: > [...] > >> [2] On a Solaris build machine @work (Solaris 10 on x86 on ESX, with >> 1.6.17 client, 1.5.4 server (sorry, old stuff)), most interactions >> with the svn server are a lot faster when using serf than with neon. >> Things like ls, cat, log, mergeinfo, ... are all a lot faster (like >> 150ms vs. 900ms). > That's true: ra_serf is significantly faster when working with pre-1.7 > servers because it have DAV baseline cache (see r1080245 and > subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/blncache.c). It dramatically reduce number > of PROPFIND requests when working with pre-1.7 servers. But it's not > used when server is HTTPv2 capable. That's why I didn't ported this > cache to ra_neon, while it's should be easily possible.
I'm confused. You say serf/v1 is faster because of the baseline cache, and that the cache is not used by serf/v2. Does that mean serf/v1 is faster than neon/v1 or that serf/v1 is faster than serf/v2? I hope you mean that serf/v1 is faster than neon/v1 and that serf/v2 is also fast because the v2 protocol means the cache is unneeded. How does serf/v2 compare to neon/v2? -- uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy http://www.uberSVN.com
